英语论文网

ne statement which is not logical or inferential, andseems like an analogy to the circular reasoning.[3]347According to his philosophy, if asentence is true, it must comply with the following several forms:1. If and only if P is true, the sentence S in the language L is true. P is theinterpretation of S in the second level of the sentence or in meta-language level.2. A condition may be seen as a statement, for example, “Schnee ist weiss” (inGerman, it means, “Snow is white.”). This statement is true if and only if “Schnee istweiss”. In this situation the statement is the same to its condition. But also equally:3. "Snow is white." is true in English, if and only if snow is white.These three examples describe the use of meta-language which can mention orassert other sentences. By the three examples, it is reasonable to believe thatmeta-language can explain the truth-value of a proposition so to grasp the differencebetween “target language” and “meta-language” is important for a proposition.As there are different kinds of language such as artificial language, computerlanguage and natural language, we may wonder what “meta-language” belongs to.Tarski considers natural language is in fact its own meta-language, a peculiar feature ofwhich allows itself to use and mention its own sentences, he claims that those languagesfound in logic, mathematics and computer programming may be seen as “semantic open,” where a sentence mentions other sentences in the same language should not becounted as a well-formed formula, while meta-language is “pragmatic open”. All in allTarski[3]proposes the definition of “meta” which means X about X and divideslanguage into target language and meta-language. His concept “meta” highlights a freshnew direction in discourse analysis and is accepted by scholars who further develop thistheory in different disciplines.
…………

2.2 Definitions of Metadiscourse
In 1959 Zellig Harris coined the word “metadiscourse” to offer “a way ofunderstanding language in use, representing a writer’s attempts to guide a receiver’sperception of a text”.[4]27-29This term was further developed by scholars such as William,Hyland and Tse. They have proposed their own definitions of metadiscourse, forexample, William defines metadiscourse as “Metadiscourse is discourse about discourseand irrelevant to the text topic.”[5]211-212and Hyland[6]157hold the view that thedefinition of metadiscourse can be divided into a narrow one and a broad one. For thenarrow one, it represents the interactional function of metadiscourse while for the broadone it is a reflection of how a writer uses rhetoric devices in a text and a reflection ofhow a writer connects discourse structure with textual meaning. Other scholars also putforward their definitions in different disciplines.Keller from psychological angle thinks that metadiscourse seems like “gambits” ofconversations and it can label the full block, organize the turn-taking, describe a writer’scognitive state and check whether conversations are exchanged fluently.[7]219-228In addition sociolinguists have different ideas about metadiscourse. Bateson[8]21and Goffman[9]54treat metadiscourse as a “frame” which provides interpretative andstructured information for the messages in a text. And Shiffrin employs “meta-talk”which means that speakers talk about the ongoing talk to explain metadiscourse inconversations.
…………

Chapter 3 Res本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。